United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
W. LUNGSTRUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
2000, defendant Clark Housh pled guilty to carjacking, bank
robbery and possession of a firearm in relation to a crime of
violence. The court sentenced Mr. Housh to a 228-month term
of imprisonment and a five-year term of supervised release.
Mr. Housh began his term of supervision in January 2016. This
matter is now before the court on Mr. Housh's motion for
early termination of his supervision. The government opposes
the motion. As will be explained, the motion is denied
without prejudice to filing another motion if additional
circumstances warrant a re-examination of the issue.
district court has authority to “terminate a term of
supervised release and discharge the defendant released at
any time after the expiration of one year of supervised
release, ” so long as it considers the factors in
§ 3553(a) and the release is in the “interest of
justice.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1); United
States v. Begay, 631 F.3d 1168, 1171-72 (10th Cir.
2011). Mr. Housh contends that early termination
is appropriate because he has served the statutorily required
period of one year, has been fully compliant with the
conditions of his release, and is in good standing with the
probation office. He further asserts that he has successfully
reintegrated into the community and has strong and stable
ties to his family and his church. He is unable to work in
light of certain disabilities and he receives disability
court commends Mr. Housh for his compliant conduct on
supervision and his successful efforts at community
reintegration. Nonetheless, the court bears in mind that
early termination is not “warranted as a matter of
course” and is not necessarily warranted simply because
a person does what is expected on supervised release. See
United States v. Rutherford, 2017 WL 2911780, at *1 (D.
Kan. July 7, 2017) (collecting cases). Rather, courts
typically reserve early termination for cases in which the
defendant has exhibited “exceptional” behavior or
in which special circumstances evidence a need for early
termination in the interests of justice. See id.
court is not persuaded that, just 20 months into a 60-month
term of supervised release, Mr. Housh's circumstances
warrant termination of his supervision. He does not suggest
that his supervision has more than a minimal impact on his
daily life. Indeed, because the probation office has assessed
Mr. Housh as a “low/moderate” risk of
reoffending, a probation officer visits Mr. Housh only every
90 days. And while the court understands from probation that
Mr. Housh is required to file monthly reports of his
activities and that he must provide probation with two
weeks' notice prior to traveling out of state, he does
not mention those requirements in his motion.
while Mr. Housh suggests in his motion that he has satisfied
all of the guideposts utilized by the probation office to
measure whether a defendant is eligible for early
termination, he clearly has not. See Monograph 109,
Supervision of Federal Offenders §
380.10(b)(1)-(9). One of those guideposts is that the
defendant has no history of violence. Thus, even putting
aside Mr. Housh's argument that the court cannot consider
the seriousness of his offense in terminating a period of
supervised release, probation clearly considers whether the
defendant has a history of violence in assessing eligibility
for early termination. And in light of Mr. Housh's
history, the probation office opposes Mr. Housh's request
for early termination.
short, the court believes that Mr. Housh will benefit from
continued supervision and that no special circumstances
warrant early termination. Mr. Housh may file another motion
in the future if additional circumstances warrant a
re-examination of the issue.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT Mr.
Housh's motion for early termination of supervised
release (doc. 113) is denied.
IS SO ORDERED.
 Mr. Housh urges that the court cannot
consider the seriousness of his offense in assessing whether
early termination is appropriate. As Mr. Housh notes, the
statute that governs early termination does not mention
§ 3553(a)(2)(A) in the list of § 3553(a) factors
that the court may consider in terminating a term of
supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1).
But while § 3583(1) requires consideration of certain
factors when a district court terminates supervised release,
it is unclear whether the statute even applies when a
district court denies a motion to terminate supervised
release. See United States v. Warren, 650 Fed.Appx.
614, 615 (10th Cir. May 26, 2016). The ...